抗病毒药物与标准护理对 COVID-19 患者临床状况的影响

IF 0.4 Q4 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice Pub Date : 2024-01-08 DOI:10.1097/ipc.0000000000001336
Marwa N. Alsaraj, M. Qazzaz, M. Abed, F. Alassaf, M. Alfahad, Mahmood H. M. Jasim
{"title":"抗病毒药物与标准护理对 COVID-19 患者临床状况的影响","authors":"Marwa N. Alsaraj, M. Qazzaz, M. Abed, F. Alassaf, M. Alfahad, Mahmood H. M. Jasim","doi":"10.1097/ipc.0000000000001336","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Favipiravir and remdesivir have recently received more clinical interest for the management of COVID-19. The study aimed to explore the effectiveness of favipiravir or remdesivir on the clinical outcome of SARS-CoV-2 patients in comparison with standard care. All patients were given standard care before being randomized into the following 3 groups: standard care group (standard care only), remdesivir group (remdesivir and standard care), and favipiravir group (group 3, favipiravir and standard care). The primary endpoint of the study was time to recovery or the clinical condition of patients on day 14. A total of 156 patients underwent randomization (53 assigned to standard care group, 51 to favipiravir group, and 52 to remdesivir group). The percentage of death in favipiravir and remdesivir groups was higher than those in the standard care group and likewise the liver enzymes. Studying the time to starting therapy showed that early administration of antivirals resulted in lower percentage of mortality. The ratio of hazard for early favipiravir and remdesivir was lower in comparison with those treated with late administration of the same drugs (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62–0.73 vs 3.22; 95% CI, 3.21–3.44, respectively, for favipiravir and 0.11; 95% CI, 0.10–0.12 vs 3.44; 95% CI, 3.43–3.55, respectively, for remdesivir). For favipiravir or remdesivir to have more beneficial effects than standard care alone for SARS-CoV-2 patients, they need to be started as early as possible. However, regular monitoring of liver function is required.","PeriodicalId":13952,"journal":{"name":"Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Consequence of Antivirals Versus Standard Care on Clinical Situation in Patients With COVID-19\",\"authors\":\"Marwa N. Alsaraj, M. Qazzaz, M. Abed, F. Alassaf, M. Alfahad, Mahmood H. M. Jasim\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/ipc.0000000000001336\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Favipiravir and remdesivir have recently received more clinical interest for the management of COVID-19. The study aimed to explore the effectiveness of favipiravir or remdesivir on the clinical outcome of SARS-CoV-2 patients in comparison with standard care. All patients were given standard care before being randomized into the following 3 groups: standard care group (standard care only), remdesivir group (remdesivir and standard care), and favipiravir group (group 3, favipiravir and standard care). The primary endpoint of the study was time to recovery or the clinical condition of patients on day 14. A total of 156 patients underwent randomization (53 assigned to standard care group, 51 to favipiravir group, and 52 to remdesivir group). The percentage of death in favipiravir and remdesivir groups was higher than those in the standard care group and likewise the liver enzymes. Studying the time to starting therapy showed that early administration of antivirals resulted in lower percentage of mortality. The ratio of hazard for early favipiravir and remdesivir was lower in comparison with those treated with late administration of the same drugs (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62–0.73 vs 3.22; 95% CI, 3.21–3.44, respectively, for favipiravir and 0.11; 95% CI, 0.10–0.12 vs 3.44; 95% CI, 3.43–3.55, respectively, for remdesivir). For favipiravir or remdesivir to have more beneficial effects than standard care alone for SARS-CoV-2 patients, they need to be started as early as possible. However, regular monitoring of liver function is required.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13952,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/ipc.0000000000001336\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ipc.0000000000001336","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近,法匹拉韦和雷米地韦在治疗 COVID-19 方面受到了更多的临床关注。本研究旨在探讨法非拉韦和雷米地韦与标准疗法相比对 SARS-CoV-2 患者临床疗效的影响。所有患者在接受标准治疗前被随机分为以下三组:标准治疗组(仅标准治疗)、雷米替韦组(雷米替韦和标准治疗)和法非拉韦组(第3组,法非拉韦和标准治疗)。研究的主要终点是第 14 天患者的康复时间或临床状况。共有 156 名患者接受了随机分组(53 人被分配到标准治疗组,51 人被分配到法比拉韦组,52 人被分配到雷米替韦组)。法非拉韦组和雷米替韦组的死亡比例高于标准治疗组,同样肝酶也高于标准治疗组。对开始治疗时间的研究表明,尽早使用抗病毒药物可降低死亡率。与晚期服用相同药物的患者相比,早期服用法匹拉韦和雷米替韦的危险比更低(法匹拉韦的危险比分别为0.62;95%置信区间[CI],0.62-0.73 vs 3.22;95% CI,3.21-3.44;雷米替韦的危险比分别为0.11;95% CI,0.10-0.12 vs 3.44;95% CI,3.43-3.55)。对于 SARS-CoV-2 患者来说,要想使法非拉韦或雷米替韦比单纯的标准疗法产生更多的疗效,就必须尽早开始使用这两种药物。不过,需要定期监测肝功能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Consequence of Antivirals Versus Standard Care on Clinical Situation in Patients With COVID-19
Favipiravir and remdesivir have recently received more clinical interest for the management of COVID-19. The study aimed to explore the effectiveness of favipiravir or remdesivir on the clinical outcome of SARS-CoV-2 patients in comparison with standard care. All patients were given standard care before being randomized into the following 3 groups: standard care group (standard care only), remdesivir group (remdesivir and standard care), and favipiravir group (group 3, favipiravir and standard care). The primary endpoint of the study was time to recovery or the clinical condition of patients on day 14. A total of 156 patients underwent randomization (53 assigned to standard care group, 51 to favipiravir group, and 52 to remdesivir group). The percentage of death in favipiravir and remdesivir groups was higher than those in the standard care group and likewise the liver enzymes. Studying the time to starting therapy showed that early administration of antivirals resulted in lower percentage of mortality. The ratio of hazard for early favipiravir and remdesivir was lower in comparison with those treated with late administration of the same drugs (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62–0.73 vs 3.22; 95% CI, 3.21–3.44, respectively, for favipiravir and 0.11; 95% CI, 0.10–0.12 vs 3.44; 95% CI, 3.43–3.55, respectively, for remdesivir). For favipiravir or remdesivir to have more beneficial effects than standard care alone for SARS-CoV-2 patients, they need to be started as early as possible. However, regular monitoring of liver function is required.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
78
期刊介绍: Medical professionals seeking an infectious diseases journal with true clinical value need look no further than Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice. Here, clinicians can get full coverage consolidated into one resource, with pertinent new developments presented in a way that makes them easy to apply to patient care. From HIV care delivery to Hepatitis C virus testing…travel and tropical medicine…and infection surveillance, prevention, and control, Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice delivers the vital information needed to optimally prevent and treat infectious diseases. Indexed/abstracted in: EMBASE, SCOPUS, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine
期刊最新文献
The Etiologic Organisms, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Nosocomial Bloodstream Infections in Pediatric Patients Evaluation of Empirical Antibiotic Therapy in Women With Acute Cystitis Visiting Outpatient Clinic in South Korea Mucormycosis in Diabetes Determinants of Mortality in COVID-19–Associated Opportunistic Fungal Infections Ceftaroline Fosamil as a Potential Treatment for Central Nervous System Infections in Children
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1